ORDER
C.K. Prasad, J.
1. Petitioner, a widow, prays for appropriate direction in the present Writ Application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for grant of balance amount, as provided under M. P. Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1985 along with interest thereon.
2. Petitioner’s husband was an Excise Officer, who passed away at an early age of 38 years, leaving behind the petitioner and two minor sons. It is averred by the petitioner that her husband, late Rajendra Maheshwari was covered under Family Benefit Fund Scheme, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Scheme) when he entered in the State Government Service in the year 1979. According to petitioner, the deductions were made from his salary every month. In the year 1985, the State Government on the representation of the Government Employees, considered introduction of a Scheme in the pattern of Government of India Scheme and with certain modifications introduced Madhya Pradesh Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 1985 Scheme). It is relevant here to state that prior to the introduction of the said scheme another scheme known as Government Servants Family Benefit Fund Scheme, 1974, was in vogue. According to 1985 Scheme, the Government Servants belonging to Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV services were required to subscribe Rs. 80/-, Rs. 60/-, Rs. 50/- and Rs. 30/- respectively. According to 1985 Scheme, in case of death, while in service the dependants/family, is eligible for payment of a sum of Rs. 80,000/, Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively. It is relevant here to state that under the 1985 Scheme subscription to the scheme is made compulsory. As stated earlier, the contribution is depended upon the category of the employee but option was given to an employee to contribute more than the amount of compulsory contribution limited to one higher category. It was further made clear under the scheme that the aforesaid option has to be given at the time of opting for the 1985 Scheme and will not be subject to any change thereafter. Petitioner claims that in view of the New Scheme she is entitled for payment of Rs. 80,000/- whereas the petitioner was paid only a sum of Rs. 30,000/-.
3. Respondents seek to deny the aforesaid relief to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner’s husband has not opted for benefit under 1985 Scheme. It has been further averred that the husband of the petitioner had given option for continuing under the 1975 Scheme and as such petitioner is not entitled to get benefit flowing from 1985 Scheme.
4. In view of the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties, it requires determination at my hand as to whether an employee is required to furnish option to cover himself under 1985 Scheme. It is relevant here to state that sub-para (d) of para 3 of the 1985 Scheme provides as follows :-
(d) All the employees who are members of the present Family Benefit Fund Scheme shall be members of new scheme compulsorily. However present members of Family Benefit Fund Scheme, who have completed 50 years of age may opt to remain in the old scheme of Family Benefit Fund. For this purpose they will have to give their options within the prescribed time limit and the options given will be pasted in their service books to make the matter abundantly clear on a permanent basis.
5. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that all the employees, who are members of the present 1975 Scheme by operation of the decision become members of the 1985 Scheme compulsorily. Discretion was given only to those employees, who have completed 50 years of age. It is not disputed that petitioner’s husband had not completed 50 years of age when the 1985 Scheme was introduced and the statement made by petitioner that her husband died at the age of 38 years has not been denied. Thus, petitioner’s husband had not completed 50 years of age and as such there was no option left to him to remain in the old scheme of family benefit fund.
6. Mr. Surjeet Singh appearing on behalf of respondent has drawn my attention to Paragraph 3 (a) of the instructions which reads as follows :-
3. A few special features of the new Group Insurance Scheme which is being introduced for employees in Madhya Pradesh from 1st June, 1985 are –
(a) The option available to the employees in the present family benefit fund scheme either to subscribe Rs. 10, Rs. 20, Rs. 30 will stand abolished and instead employees will be subscribing compulsorily a definite amount of contribution according to their categories. For this, they will be divided into 4 categories of A, B, C and D and the rate of contributions for them will be Rs. 80, Rs. 60, Rs. 50 and Rs. 30 per month respectively. However, an employee, who desires to contribute more than the amount of compulsory contribution applicable in his case, he may opt to do so in accordance with one higher category. But this option is required to be given compulsorily at the time of opting for the new scheme and will not be subject to any change thereafter. Employees who do not furnish their options within the stipulated time limit will be deemed to have come over to the new scheme.
In the submission of the learned counsel option is to be exercised for coming under the umbrella of 1985 Scheme in view of the provisions laid in the aforesaid paragraph.
7. I am not at all impressed by this submission of the learned counsel of the respondents. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph, in my opinion, gives option to an employee to subscribe more than the amount of compulsory contribution limited to one higher category. The aforesaid provision does not contemplate of option to be given for coverage under 1985 Scheme and is limited only to higher contribution. In fact, the paragraph referred to above in clear terms states that all employees will be subscribing compulsorily definite amount of contribution according to their categories. Further paragraph 3(d) of the aforesaid Scheme also provides that all the members who are the members of the present family benefit fund scheme shall be member of the New Scheme Compulsorily. Only exception has been given to an employee who has completed 50 years of age. A reading of paragraph 4 of the aforesaid 1985 Scheme further makes it clear that deductions on account of 1985 Scheme is to be made from the pay bills of each month and the drawing and disbursing officer is made responsible for the same.
8. Thus, a reading of the Scheme in totality contemplate that every employee who are members of the 1975 Scheme is covered under 1985 Scheme, compulsorily. Option to continue under the 1975 Scheme is given only to an employee who has completed 50 years of age. Further option is given to employee to contribute more than the amount of compulsory contribution in one higher category. Subscription for 1985 Scheme is made compulsory and no option is left to an employee in this regard. Once having held so, the question of option of an employee, who has not completed more than 50 years of age, is of no consequence.
9. There is no dispute that petitioner’s husband did not complete 50 years of age when 1985 Scheme was introduced so his subscription to the new 1985 Scheme was compulsory. Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of 1985 Scheme. I am fortified in my view from the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Yogendranath Monge (DR) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1993 MPLJ 65. In the aforesaid case the benefit under 1985 Scheme was sought to be denied on the ground that “Dr. Smt. Satyawati Monge, did not opt to become member of the New Scheme and such the difference as asserted is not possible.” In the background of the aforesaid fact, Division Bench of this Court held as follows :-
“In the circumstances aforesaid, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit in terms of the New Scheme (See Para 3(d) of Annexure R/5) and is also entitled to receive interest at the rate of 18% per annum (which level is admittedly less than the current market rate) computable from the expiry of two months from the date of death i.e. 14-12-1986 till actual payment. The quantification shall be done by the respondents”.
10. Mr. Sharma strenuously urged that petitioner be awarded exemplary cost as also interest on the amount due. Petitioner’s husband himself has opted for continuance of 1975 Scheme, which as held earlier is not permissible. I am not inclined to grant either interest or cost of litigation as petitioner’s husband is responsible to some extent in the matter.
11. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the present Writ Petition. Respondents are directed to pay to petitioner within six weeks the difference of amount between 1975 and 1985 Scheme.